Movie Review: Joyeux Noël

Rarely do I come across a film about a subject so far from my general taste that touches me so deeply. For those unaware, the film Joyeux Noël, which translates literally to Merry Christmas, a fact I did not realize at first but is quite obvious in retrospect, is about the Christmas Armistice of 1914. During World War I on a few locations on the front, the two sides refused to fight each other on Christmas eve and instead fraternized. They shared food, sang Christmas carols, played soccer, and did not fight. This beautiful image lasted past Christmas, and these new compatriots refused to fight each other after Christmas, and the military leadership had to separate the groups and send them to other places in order to remove this peaceful disposition from them. I love the Christmas armistice. It is proof that humanity, when given the choice, will choose love over hate. That's beautiful to me. Now, for the actual movie.

Joyeux Noël, the Christmas movie that made an atheist cry. Seems like a good enough review at that, doesn't it? Don't worry, there's more. The film is very well acted, though it is not an American film, so the odds of you knowing the actors are very low. If you're interested, check the imdb page. A few of the actors stood out as particularly good. Benno Fürmann as tenor opera singer turned soldier Nikolaus Sprink plays the protagonist, more or less. The cast is somewhat large, but the most focus goes to Sprink, and to a lesser extent to his wife, also a singer, Anna Sörensen who is portrayed by Diane Krüger. Both actors had their singing voices dubbed in by other actors, and it is a little noticeable, but not completely distracting. Sprink is played with this restrained emotional power that he seems to emanate in every scene. The times when he tries to be overtly emotional, and isn't backed up by Krüger's intensity, he fails, and comes across as forced.

The supporting cast, whether they be French, or Scottish, or even German, are stellar. I have no complaints towards any of them. The French cast is the best, followed by the Scottish and the German, but even the lesser performances are still excellent. There is one French soldier who always carries an alarm clock with him, and he's the most endearing of all of the supporting cast.

The cinematography is good, but not noticeable. I tried to keep my eye out for anything particularly good, but I didn't. The cinematography is good. It isn't great. It isn't awful. It's just there. Nothing about the cinematography is particularly good or memorable, but nothing comes out as good or bad. It's just...there.

The music throughout is excellent, though I wonder why very little of it was sub-titled. The songs were mostly Christmas related, but I didn't know all of the tunes, or all of the lyrics, even in English. I would have appreciated sub-titles for the songs, and I think it is a missed opportunity. Perhaps sub-titles would have detracted from the overall feel and it was an artistic choice, but it irritated me to not be able to understand what was being said, or rather, sang. The only other time I took issues with the rest of the sub-titles, was when I couldn't read them through my tears.

This movie makes a powerful message about war, but unfortunately it is the same belabored point that every war movie makes. I don't take issue with the message, I just find it unsettling how many movies employ the theme of peace through brotherhood, and how completely this message is ignored by the world. The message perceived from the war scenes comes through loud and clear. The only section where the message feels tacked on is the religious commentary made after the armistice employed through the character of a cartoonishly evil religious man. Maybe it's just my modern sensibilities, but I don't understand how anyone, even in wartime, can reconcile a lust for war and sheer hatred for your enemy with the teachings of Jesus Christ, even when reading the bible selectively.

The film ends right after the armistice troops have been re-deployed to different areas, and everything after the last bit of peace and civility drags on into the credits. But this is in no way a bad film. It has a few issues, but overall its still a great Christmas film, and a rather good movie overall. Though perhaps a bit too heart-breaking and sad for repeat viewings. Four stars, out of five.

**** out of *****

Movie Review: Martyrs

I'd tell you this is the story of a girl, abused at a young age, having one real friend in the world, and how they together face adulthood, because a cursory glance over the imdb page for this film made me think that. However, it is entirely untrue. Any shred of integrity or artistic merit you think this film has? Yeah, throw that right out.

This film has hardly any redeeming qualities. To an extent, the first two acts of the film are as I expected, but only in a rather limited scope. The third act, which is where audiences and the movie really lose it, is what makes me hate this film. In short, what this film fails to do in 40 minutes, V for Vendetta did successfully in 20. The first two acts make it seem like the story is going somewhere, but it's not. To call this a horror film is inaccurate. Yes, its horrifying, but only about as horrifying as the Hostel films. A lot of gore, a very small amount of substance, and a crudely forced theme of grander vision and ethical ramifications which is utterly false.

This film offends me, and not because of the gore or violence, just because of the story. I can't really say too much without spoiling, so I'll have to keep this a bit vague.

There are these people who have sophisticated and expensive facilities where they torture people into enlightenment, but they are atheists, but they also believe in an afterlife and want to learn it from these people they slowly kill. Got it? Yeah, me neither. This whole premise leaves me with a lot of questions. For example, why not just go to places where people are already dying, since they allude to the suffering of people in third world nations in the film. Wouldn't that be cheaper and much less complicated? Where are they getting all of this money anyway? Is this group somehow tax exempt because of its beliefs? Its only been around 100 years or less as far as I can tell. Member supported I guess. And what about Buddhism? This martyrdom you describe seems eerily similar to Buddhist enlightenment. Did no one think, maybe go and try Buddhism, instead of starting to kidnap young women? Finally, if you believe that there is an afterlife and any human can reach it, why are you so pro-atheism? Isn't that just a tad contradictory? Is this some sort of conceptual abstract quantum physics energy collective of human spirits? What's the deal?

That's only the beginning of my concerns with this film, but going into the more tangible measurements, lets start with the acting. It's ok. Not horrible, not great. No one stands out. The protagonist(s) do alright, though they are dreadfully boring. The real protagonist of the 2nd and 3rd acts performs well, but she is also playing a meek character who does not stand up for herself. I know it's impossible to put yourself in the situation of another 100%, but I really feel most people would have performed differently. There were dozens of ways to alter your standing and rectify your situation, and she almost never speaks. Silent protagonists generally don't work in films, at least of this quality of script, and it doesn't work here. Furthermore, she breaks every horror film cliche rule. Turn the lights on, make sure the body is dead, and so on. No, wait, I have 1 more question.

Was the actress not wearing a bra an intentional cheap ploy for sex appeal, or did she just not wear one? It is a French film, after all.

The effects, when examined, are pretty good. Though not always. For example: a shotgun does not jettison your victim back 10 feet. Shotguns do not work that way. Some of the gore is pretty convincing, at least until the end when the realm of plausibility is exited with the velocity of a jet-pack. There were some real continuity issues with that as well. The blood is flowing down the neck in one scene, and in the next the neck is perfectly clean? Shoddy editing there, friends. The lighting is only noticeable when they borrow the shaky on and off normally employed by carnival haunted houses, except there it usually works.

Ignoring all of this, the number 1 problem is how dull the film was. I had to force myself to sit through it. At least some of the other films I've reviewed were so bad they were entertaining. This was just bad. But they used....good quality film? I don't know why I'm even ranking it this high, maybe for the alright effects. I've seen worse films, but not many. Two stars.

** out of *****

Movie Review: TRON Legacy

It has taken nearly 30 years for this 1982 Disney classic among geeks to get a properly made and budgeted sequel, and hype for this film has been palpable since the first teaser trailer leaked in the form of a cellphone video quite a while ago. The geeks of the world have been concerned, tearing our hair out with worry and jumping up and down with anticipation. A few trailers, a few 30 second clips on youtube, a couple short interviews, all of these watched and re-watched ad-nauseum. I've been following this film since I first became aware of it and I am a huge fan of the original, and to put it simply, this film did not disappoint.
A few people asked me if they needed to see the original film before seeing this very delayed sequel, and the answer is a delayed no, but seeing the original pushes this film from good to great, and from slightly emotional to touching and, in my case, tear jerking. There are a number of references to the original film, as well as a few references to other classic sci-fi geek classics of the 80's. In short, this is not a movie made specifically for the fans, but a film made to create them. I saw the film with a few friends, some who had seen the original and some who had not. The post-movie discussion showed similar ratings of 9's and 10's from both sides, and vows from the uninitiated to watch the original as soon as possible.
I am not going to go into the plot here in the interest of keeping spoilers out for people who have not yet seen the film, but I will make a few judgement calls. Firstly, the acting. Garrett Hedlund's performance as Sam Flynn is impeccable. He is both a new and interesting character, as well as very much his father's son. The somewhat shoe-horned in character development for him in the first act is only barely noticeable. His performance is so spot on that the audience simply doesn't care, and by the beginning of the 2nd act is entirely forgotten as forced in lieu of empathy for the character and genuine concern for his fate. The female lead Quorra, portrayed nearly as well by Olivia Wilde, who I hope will go on to bigger and better dramatic things now that she's been in her big budget blockbuster and performed admirably. Olivia Wilde was able to pull off a sexy, and to be honest, breathtakingly beautiful woman, but not to play her as the shoved in Bond girl equivalent of the grid. She is a real character, and we care about her as much as our protagonist. Everything about these two was well done.
As for my judgment on Jeff Bridges and Bruce Boxleitner, both of whom reprised their integral roles in the TRON universe, as well as the new villain portrayed by a digitally de-aged Bridges, CLU, there is nothing more for me to say beyond amazing.
I actually have essentially no complaints. I loved everything about this film. I got every single reference to the original film, I understood the plot, I loved the action, I was perceptually overwhelmed with the strength of the IMAX score, despite having already heard Daft Punk's entire soundtrack a week earlier. The music, as good as it is, takes a backseat to some of the action scenes, which are so well done, so grand in scale, so effective in execution, that I think this film is what every digitally created action film henceforth should try to emulate. No overuse of shaky cam, no overuse of slow-motion (though there is some), no needless violence, just what had to be there.
Crisp, beautiful, compelling, digital love. 4.5 out of 5 stars

****.5 out of *****

Movie Review: Pink Flamingos

A classic, as it were, and perhaps the oldest film I have reviewed. The brainchild of quasi-notable celebrity John Waters, who I first became aware of through The Simpsons episode "Homer's Phobia" which features him as the same named character John, who looks very similar to Waters and appears to be indistinct from his voice actor with the exception of his occupation. It is, in fact, the charisma of John Waters that was a strong motivator towards me watching this film, even more so than its, in my opinion undeserved, cult status.
I ended up watching the 1997 cut with the extended John Waters ending that featured commentary and some deleted scenes. I'm not entirely sure if this added anything special to my experience, but it is the version of the film I watched.
The acting is half decent, with the protagonist and her family the best performances in the film. The majority of the cast appears to have never acted before, and it shines clear throughout. Some of the scenes even feature people who are supposed to be upset, actually on the verge of laughter because of the underlying silliness of the whole film.
The plot boils down to a competition between the title character Devine and her family versus the husband and wife team of Raymond and Connie Marble. They both vie to be the filthiest people in the world. Though by today's standards, they are not very unusual at all. This, as well as the quality of the literal film used, severely date the picture. Perhaps in a world where we can all be immediately connected via webcam or cellphone, the idea of outlying outrageous people seems more far fetched. Nothing that happens in this film is as bad as, say, 2 girls 1 cup, or any of the other extreme and extremely unusual and obscene internet pornography most of us could find given more than 5 minutes and a few Google searches. The cult status seems to be based on how bad it is, but people genuinely love this film, the way most Rocky Horror fans genuinely love that film, myself included. I can look past glaring issues for the gold that shines through, but not this time.
So then...why didn't I like it? I've seen films with worse acting, worse writing, more outrageous disgusting acts, more violent acts....and I just thought the film was below average. Perhaps it is dated? Perhaps it is too crudely done for my taste? I personally don't think so. I believe that today's modern movie-goer has been exposed to so much outrageous content in their life that 1972's shocking film, is today's mere footnote in cinema history. There was not a single point in the film where I even gagged a little, or was even slightly put off by the blood, or the deaths. The most emotional rise I experienced was a few chuckles now and again. Truth be told, I was dreadfully bored. This is today's cinematic world. I just watched a grown man in drag eat freshly produced canine excrement and did not even bat an eye. When I got to the part everyone talks about, I was actually disappointed by its utter lack of shocking-ness. I suppose that's where we stand though. The soundtrack is memorable, the acting is so-so, the writing is confusing and manufactured, the film lived and thrived in the 70's, as a cult classic, and, for me at least, there it will remain. Two and one half stars, out of 5.

**.5 out of *****

De-sensitively yours, -B

Movie Review: FEED

This film, as the laughably sparse Wikipedia article will tell you, is about a police investigation of a sexual fetish known as feederism, a twist on classical domination/subservience with the angle of a healthy feeder and a morbidly obese to the point of being unable to move, eater. It is not a very good film, to be honest. I was quite disappointed. I went into this film after hearing from a companion about the impact this film's graphic imagery had on them.
After watching the film myself, I'd say that the content is somewhat shocking, but not in the class of say, The Human Centipede, or even one of the seemingly endless SAW films. There's a few very, very fat women in it, but it's nothing more than you'd see on any random BBW fetish site, or even an episode of Maury. All of the effects in the film are very well done and convincing, not just limited to the grotesque fatness, but also the violence and injuries, but that is where the realism in this film ends.
The story makes very little sense, especially when examined at closely. The internet security angle specifically is just claptrap. And the behavior of the protagonist and resident renegade cop looking to prove himself, Phillip Jackson (Patrick Thompson), goes way beyond the duties of a normal police officer. He breaks several international laws and treaties during this film, even going so far as to be possibly more guilty than the antagonist, portrayed by Alex O'Loughlin, who was brilliant, with the exception of his lines. The story makes a few desperate attempts at symbolism and deeper meaning, but it's all surrounded by wooden performances and painfully hackneyed dialog, especially between the Australian police who talk like they're in a parody of Dirty Harry.
The writer and director seem to know what they're doing and have clearly taken a class or two, but the execution was laughable. Some story elements if fleshed out could have been intriguing, but were not explored. The film is well shot but the content is not interesting. Furthermore, the director apparently has been taught about gel filters and contrast lighting, but he was never taught how to use it. Half of the film you are beaten over the head with either a orange/blue or a red/blue contrast. It works in theory, but the contrasts need to be there for a reason, not just because you were taught to do a little lighting. The soundtrack is poppy and fitting, but not memorable. And really, that's the final verdict on the film. It has a little gore, some fair acting, a mediocre plot, a predictable progression, and it's nothing really worth remembering. Two and one half stars, out of five.

**.5 out of *****